Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:22:49AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:00:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
> > > > can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
> > > > location by choice. I never thought "hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
> > > > this to Iran". Instead, the terms of the licence are forcing me to do that.
> > >
> > > Almost -- they force you to do that if you modify and distribute. So
> > > you don't have freedom with respect to the software, because you can't
> > > modify and distribute without the license urging you to potentially
> > > break the law.
> >
> > So, what, vote with your feet, and leave the country which impose such
> > ridicoulous constraint on you. No sympathy from me there.
>
> DFSG #13: any licence that requires you to move country in order to exercise
> the granted permissions is not free. Sheesh.
Ok, well, which would mean all licence are non-free, especially if you
consider things like crypto, patents and distributing your software to cuba,
so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: